DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on4/16/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application claims priority as a Continuation of Application 18/388679 filed on 11/10/2023, which claims further priority as a Continuation of Application 18/120259 filed 3/10/2023. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/16/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 11,854,025 B1 and Patent No. 12,307,472 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are generally directed toward similar details related to system and methods for generating market planning areas. The details of “A market planning system configured for dynamically generating an at least one market planning area for an at least one business location, the system comprising: a central computing system in selective communication with an at least one business database and configured for: accessing an at least one census database containing select data associated with a plurality of contiguous block groups that form a larger geographic region within which the at least one business location is geographically positioned; identifying a plurality of said block groups stored within the at least one census database that are geographically proximal to the at least one business location; for each of the identified block groups: establishing a block group (“BG”) record using data obtained from the at least one census database, said BG record containing at least one of a unique BG identifier, a census tract corresponding to said block group, BG coordinates containing geographic coordinates of said block group, a BG shapefile containing a polygon representing geographic boundaries of said block group based on the BG coordinates, a population centroid containing geographic coordinates of the population centroid for said block group, a BG population count containing a current estimated population of residents within said block group, and a trade anchor table containing a trade anchor record for each of an at least one trade anchor determined by the computing system to be geographically located within said block group; accessing at least one business database containing select data associated with a plurality of convenience-based retailers; comparing the BG coordinates of said block group against geographic coordinates of said convenience-based retailers stored within the at least one business database to determine whether one or more of said convenience-based retailers are geographically positioned within said block group; identifying at least one trade anchor geographically positioned within said block group” and “establishing a local trade area (“LTA”) record containing at least one of a unique LTA identifier, LTA coordinates containing geographic coordinates of said local trade area, an LTA shapefile containing a polygon representing geographic boundaries of said local trade area based on the combined BG shapefiles of each block group geographically located within said local trade area, an LTA population count containing a current estimated population of residents within said local trade area, and a block group table containing the block group record for each block group geographically located within said local trade area; defining an at least one market planning area based on the local trade areas; and for each of the at least one market planning area, establishing a market planning area (“MPA”) record containing at least one of a unique MPA identifier, MPA coordinates containing geographic coordinates of said market planning area, an MPA shapefile containing a polygon representing geographic boundaries of said market planning area based on the combined LTA shapefiles of each local trade area geographically located within said market planning area, an MPA population count containing a current estimated population of residents within said market planning area, and an LTA table containing the LTA record for each local trade area geographically located within said market planning area”, are recited in both applications, but include some slight differences regarding the anchor type and classification type details. The claims recite the same invention, but worded slightly differently and are not identical. The related application presents these details mainly in its independent claims, while these details are recited throughout both the independent claims and the dependent claims of the instant application. Differences in the claims are addressed by the prior art applied in the rejections above (namely features that may be recited in the instant claims, but are not specifically presented in the claims of the related application). Also, elimination of an element or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)).
Allowable over 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected for Double Patenting for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 disclose a system, product, and method for analyzing business and retail data to determine geographic boundaries of groups including populations for determining local trade areas and market planning areas to allow a human user to better assign advertising.
Reasons claims are subject matter eligible under 35 USC 101: The 35 USC 101 rejection was withdrawn because the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by utilization of shapefiles in specific relation to the databases for associating retailers in block groups, which uses the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond general linking (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). Therefore, making the claims eligible under 35 USC 101.
Reasons the 103 rejection is overcome: Independent claims 1-20 disclose a system, product, and method for analyzing business and retail data to determine geographic boundaries of groups including populations for determining local trade areas and market planning areas to allow a human user to better assign advertising using specific anchor and classification types.
The closest prior art of record is:
Mansour et al. (US 2017/0091795 A1) – which discloses identifying local trade areas using groupings of stores and similarity indexes.
Weiss et al. (US 2011/0099048 A1) – which discloses determining groupings of stores based on consumer data and similarity and identifying anchors for clustering groups of stores.
Kiefer (US 2003/0097295 A1) – which discloses determinations for site selection for retail stores.
Trivedi (Minakshi Trivedi, Regional and Categorical Patterns in Consumer Behavior: Revealing Trends, Journal of Retailing, Volume 87, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 18-30, ISSN 0022-4359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2010.11.002.) – which discloses categorical patterns in consumer behavior with block group analysis.
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1, 19, and 20. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight. Specifically the claimed “A method for dynamically generating an at least one market planning area for an at least one business location, the method comprising the steps of: implementing a central computing system configured for receiving and processing select data related to each of the at least one market planning area and business location, the computing system in selective communication with an at least one business database; the computing system accessing an at least one census database containing select data associated with a plurality of contiguous block groups that form a larger geographic region within which the at least one business location is geographically positioned; the computing system identifying a plurality of said block groups stored within the at least one census database that are geographically proximal to the at least one business location; for each of the identified block groups: the computing system establishing a block group (“BG”) record using data obtained from the at least one census database, said BG record containing at least one of a unique BG identifier, a census tract corresponding to said block group, BG coordinates containing geographic coordinates of said block group, a BG shapefile containing a polygon representing geographic boundaries of said block group based on the BG coordinates, a population centroid containing geographic coordinates of the population centroid for said block group, a BG population count containing a current estimated population of residents within said block group, and a trade anchor table containing a trade anchor record for each of an at least one trade anchor determined by the computing system to be geographically located within said block group; the computing system accessing at least one business database containing select data associated with a plurality of convenience-based locations; the computing system comparing the BG coordinates of said block group against geographic coordinates of said convenience-based locations stored within the at least one business database to determine whether one or more of said convenience-based locations are geographically positioned within said block group; the computing system identifying at least one trade anchor geographically positioned within said block group; for each of the at least one identified trade anchor, the computing system establishing a trade anchor record using data obtained from the at least one business database, said trade anchor record containing at least one of a unique anchor identifier, the BG identifier of the corresponding block group for said trade anchor, anchor coordinates containing geographic coordinates of said trade anchor, an anchor type containing a classification type for said trade anchor, and a retailer table containing select details associated with each of the at least one convenience-based location determined by the computing system to be geographically located within said trade anchor; the computing system setting the anchor type for a one of the identified trade anchors for said block group to be a primary trade anchor; the computing system defining a plurality of local trade areas based on the identified block groups; for each of the local trade areas, the computing system establishing a local trade area (“LTA”) record containing at least one of a unique LTA identifier, LTA coordinates containing geographic coordinates of said local trade area, an LTA shapefile containing a polygon representing geographic boundaries of said local trade area based on the combined BG shapefiles of each block group geographically located within said local trade area, an LTA population count containing a current estimated population of residents within said local trade area, and a block group table containing the block group record for each block group geographically located within said local trade area; the computing system defining an at least one market planning area based on the local trade areas; and for each of the at least one market planning area, the computing system establishing a market planning area (“MPA”) record containing at least one of a unique MPA identifier, MPA coordinates containing geographic coordinates of said market planning area, an MPA shapefile containing a polygon representing geographic boundaries of said market planning area based on the combined LTA shapefiles of each local trade area geographically located within said market planning area, an MPA population count containing a current estimated population of residents within said market planning area, and an LTA table containing the LTA record for each local trade area geographically located within said market planning area”, which is not taught by the prior art. Therefore, the claims are allowable over the 35 USC 103 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights